Download this page as PDF

NZQA
New Zealand Qualifications Authority
Mana Tohu Matauranga O Aotearoa
Home > Qualifications and standards > Awards > New Zealand Scholarship > Scholarship subjects > Biology > Biology
Assessment Report
Assessment Report
New Zealand Scholarship
Biology 2016
Standard 93101
Part A: Commentary
In general, candidates used the resource material together with their knowledge to answer the
questions. Many did not give justified opinions, simply stating an opinion without supporting it with a
reasoned argument or evidence.
Candidates are advised to write as legibly as possible, making use of asterisks, or similar, as they make
new points. Additional information is best added at the end rather than attempting to squeeze it between
the lines or needing to draw arrows to different parts.
Part B: Report on performance standard
Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance
commonly:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
planned their response very well and with thoroughness
gave detailed answers to all three questions
addressed all bullet points or aspects of each question
answered with depth and breadth
wrote clearly without ambiguity
wrote concisely in a logical manner
demonstrated their knowledge of biological concepts by making links and justifications that were
not immediately apparent from the given resource information
provided fluent answers without irrelevant information
used correct biological terms throughout their responses
justified their opinions with sound reasoning
interpreted each question correctly.
Candidates who were awarded Scholarship
commonly:
• showed evidence of planning
• wrote detailed answers to at least two of the three questions
1
• demonstrated good knowledge of some of the concepts necessary to answer the three questions.
For example:
•
•
•
•
◦ compared and contrasted differences between both bird species using the evidence provided
in the resources
◦ knew the difference between human impact and intervention
◦ correctly used the terms habitat and niche, or gene and allele
◦ organised their answers, for instance, discussing survival and evolution in separate paragraphs
◦ applied evolutionary principles to the rim-egg laying intervention and accurately discussed
changes to allele frequencies
◦ accurately applied the evolutionary principles in the context of the Orca
◦ recognised that the Orca had not yet speciated and that they are sympatric species
◦ correctly explained natural selection in terms of the behaviour
◦ wrote about structural and behavioural reproductive isolating mechanisms
◦ gave more than one possible justified opinion on the future of evolution
◦ presented a well-planned argument for which genus the species naledi should be placed in
and considered arguments for both genera
◦ supported arguments with their own knowledge and with named species and data from the
given resource information
◦ understood that Australopithecines were also bipedal and genus Homo, advanced bipedal
◦ using the evidence, justified why the position of the species naledi, was early rather than old
or recent
◦ attempted the implications of the three positions early, old or recent
◦ understood hominin refers to all human ancestors (not just genus Homo)
linked their ideas well
addressed many aspects of each question
used biological terminology accurately
justified their descriptions with clear reasons.
Other candidates commonly:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
had limited planning
failed to answer one or more questions
failed to make links or justify their evidence
wrote correct biology but with no relevance to the question
gave generalised answers rather than in context
gave ideas and reasons that were unclear
demonstrated poor or incorrect biological knowledge. For example:
◦ did not understand the difference between human impact and human intervention
◦ confused habitat and niche
◦ incorrectly stated that birds rim-egg laid to remove harmful alleles because they could smell
or sense the defects
◦ incorrectly stated that bottleneck or inbreeding caused more harmful alleles (not that they
were more likely to be expressed)
◦ confused inbreeding with interbreeding
◦ mistook limited flight capacity for flightlessness
◦ confused gene with allele
◦ incorrectly assumed that humans kept the robins in captivity
◦ spent too much time writing about how the Chatham Island Black Robin and Tomtit arrived at
the Chatham Islands (main population versus island population)
◦ wrote about R strategies versus K strategies
◦ wrote about general evolutionary mechanisms rather than specifically about the evolution of
orca
◦ did not realise that the Orca are sympatric subspecies
◦ incorrectly assumed that the Orca are separate species
◦ were unable to distinguish between population and species
◦ did not state their opinion and, in instances where they did, they did not justify them
2
◦ assumed that whaling of the Orca still occurs
◦ explained ‘adaptation’ rather than answering the question about how the adaptation evolved
◦ gave incorrect reasoning for the divergence of the Orca, for example, different water
temperatures or tectonic plate movements
◦ gave general, irrelevant knowledge about human evolution
◦ used the information in the question without integration with their own knowledge when
justifying their arguments
◦ did not plan well so changed their mind after beginning to write the answer leading to confused
arguments about which genus H.naledi belonged to
◦ incorrectly stated that genus Homo were the first bipedal or Homo erectus was the first bipedal
◦ were unable to distinguish between hominin, Homo and hominid
◦ incorrectly stated that all hominins are bipedal
◦ did not understand the implications that the positioning of H naledi would have on the current
understanding of hominin evolution
◦ incorrectly used the term hominin to mean the Homo genus
• failed to logically develop their arguments and failed to justify ideas
• repeated information
• did not answer what was asked and included irrelevant information.
Subject page
Copyright © New Zealand Qualifications Authority
3